that of the eighteenth century. It is one of a translator's many
refuges, and has been conceded so long that it can hardly he denied him
with justice, however it may remind the reader of a bald verbal
rendering.

A very few words will serve to conclude this somewhat protracted
Preface. I have not sought to interpret Horace with the minute accuracy
which I should think necessary in writing a commentary; and in general
I have been satisfied to consult two of the latest editions, those by
Orelli and Ritter. In a few instances I have preferred the views of the
latter; but his edition will not supersede that of the former, whose
commentary is one of the most judicious ever produced, within a
moderate compass, upon a classical author. In the few notes which I
have added at the end of this volume, I have noticed chiefly the
instances in which I have differed from him, in favour either of
Hitter's interpretation, or of some view of my own. At the same time it
must be said that my translation is not to be understood as always
indicating the interpretation I prefer. Sometimes, where the general
effect of two views of the construction of a passage has been the same,
I have followed that which I believed to be less correct, for reasons
of convenience. I have of course held myself free to deviate in a
thousand instances from the exact form of the Latin sentence; and it
did not seem reasonable to debar myself from a mode of expression which
appeared generally consistent with the original, because it happened to
be verbally consistent with a mistaken view of the Latin words. To take
an example mentioned in my notes, it may be better in Book III. Ode 3,
line 25, to make "adulterae" the genitive case after "hospes" than the
dative after "splendet;" but for practical purposes the two come to the
same thing, both being included in the full development of the thought;
and a translation which represents either is substantially a true